Woods v. Diepenbrock

California Supreme Court

Woods v. Diepenbrock

74 P. 546, 141 Cal. 55, 1903 Cal. LEXIS 470

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 5, 1903

DocketSac. No. 983.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 74 P. 546 (Woods v. Diepenbrock) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Woods v. Diepenbrock, 74 P. 546, 141 Cal. 55, 1903 Cal. LEXIS 470 (Cal. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

LORIGAN, J.—

This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing the action, and is taken upon the judgment-roll alone. There is no hill of exceptions; hence we are not advised upon which particular ground the lower court ordered'the dismissal. The judgment recites that 1 ‘ The court, after hearing the evidence adduced . . . and good cause appearing therefor, it is ordered that said motion be and the same is hereby granted. ’ ’

Upon appeal every intendment is in favor of the validity of the judgment appealed from, and it is incumbent upon the party assailing it to show affirmatively that it is erroneous. Nothing towards that end appears in the record.

The superior court has power to dismiss an action upon several grounds (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 581), and it will be presumed, in the absence of any showing to the contrary, that the dismissal was ordered on some good ground, and that in ordering it the court properly exercised its power in conformity with the rules of law. (Pardy v. Montgomery, 77 *56 Cal. 326.) One of the grounds upon which the lower court is authorized to dismiss an action is for failure to prosecute it with reasonable diligence, and from the record in this ease a reasonable inference can be indulged in that it was for this reason the action was dismissed.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.

McFarland, J., and Henshaw, J., concurred.

Hearing in Bank denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

LORIGAN, J.—

This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing the action, and is taken upon the judgment-roll alone. There is no hill of exceptions; hence we are not advised upon which particular ground the lower court ordered'the dismissal. The judgment recites that 1 ‘ The court, after hearing the evidence adduced . . . and good cause appearing therefor, it is ordered that said motion be and the same is hereby granted. ’ ’

Upon appeal every intendment is in favor of the validity of the judgment appealed from, and it is incumbent upon the party assailing it to show affirmatively that it is erroneous. Nothing towards that end appears in the record.

The superior court has power to dismiss an action upon several grounds (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 581), and it will be presumed, in the absence of any showing to the contrary, that the dismissal was ordered on some good ground, and that in ordering it the court properly exercised its power in conformity with the rules of law. (Pardy v. Montgomery, 77 *56 Cal. 326.) One of the grounds upon which the lower court is authorized to dismiss an action is for failure to prosecute it with reasonable diligence, and from the record in this ease a reasonable inference can be indulged in that it was for this reason the action was dismissed.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.

McFarland, J., and Henshaw, J., concurred.

Hearing in Bank denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 P. 546, 141 Cal. 55, 1903 Cal. LEXIS 470, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woods-v-diepenbrock-cal-1903.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack